Motivations and Performance of Exhibitors: An Exploratory Study of a Destination Marketing Event

 

Dr. Shobha Menon, Dr. Manoj Edward

¹Associate Professor, SCMS School of Technology and Management, Cochin

²Associate Professor, School of Management Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin

 

ABSTRACT:

The tourism industry is going through challenging times. Innovative marketing tools are required to promote business for the firm and the destination. Trade shows have proved to be a successful destination promotion tool and is increasingly forming part of the marketing strategies in the tourism industry. The purpose of this empirical study is to identify the motivations and outcomes (trade show performance) of a destination trade show from the perspective of one of the main participants of a destination trade show i.e.exhibition attendees. Systematic sampling survey method was used during a destination trade show, Kerala Travel Mart, (KTM) 2012. Giving information on products emerged as the main motivation and developing and maintaining relationships as the second main motivation of exhibitors. Projecting an image of being a strong and solid company and fostering relationships are perceived as the most important outcomes for exhibitors. So it is evident that KTM has been a success as KTM has achieved one of the main motivations – building relationships. For quality of trade shows, quality of service and the competence of the organizers and staff were ranked the highest, followed by choice of venue.The managerial implications of these findings for destination managers, exhibition organizers and exhibitors are discussed in detail.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Motivations and Performance of Exhibitors: An Exploratory Study of a Destination Marketing Event:

The marketing of places or destinations has been turned into an increasingly professionalized, highly organized and specialized industry (Lichrou, O’ Malley and Patterson, 2008). Esu and Ebitu (2010), while conceptualizing a model for the development of promotional strategies for emerging tourism destination, confirm collective and collaborative destination marketing as specific promotional strategies for emerging tourist destinations.

 

The importance of collaboration is reconfirmed by WTO which states, “It is increasingly difficult for businesses to survive alone. Regardless of the strategy adopted to respond to an increasingly competitive business environment, it is important to develop local partnerships to bring in complementary strengths and thereby offer an attractive product representative of the location.”(WTO, 2002). Alliance formation or collaboration is seen as a crucial determinant of enhancing a firm’s and a destination’s competitiveness.  Collaboration is basically a process where individuals or firms come together to achieve a common purpose. The key to building collaborative relationships is an understanding of the processes by which those relationships can be nurtured and managed.

 

 

Trade show is a very popular promotion tool used in tourism because of the inherent advantages of trade shows for the tourism industry. The tourism industry is characterized by great geographical dispersion, climate of uncertainty, simultaneity and inseparability of production and consumption of tourism products coupled with the challenges of credence and experience qualities. Trade shows are events that bring together, in a single location, for a specific period of few days, sellers and buyers of tourism services and thus stimulate the creation of a trusting relationship between suppliers and their potential clients, which reduces this uncertainty. In many cases, the term “trade show” is regarded as a synonym for fairs, trade fairs and expositions which can be defined as ‘regularly scheduled events at which manufacturers display their products and take order.’(Kirchgeorg et al., 2010). Understanding this important marketing tool and its impact on the tourism business is necessary for the tourism industry and governments, who realize the immense potential of the tourism sector to act as a catalyst of economic and social development.  It is no longer a case of achieving merely an incremental rise in a concrete function, such as sales, but rather one of reinforcing, simultaneously and synergically, all of those functions which confer upon the company or tourism destination a competitive advantage. (Fayos –Sola, Marin and Meffert (1994).

OBJECTIVES:

To understand the dynamics of collaborative destination marketing involved in a trade show from the perspective of the tourism industry representing the destination, the paper attempts to explore firms’ behavior by assessing the motivations and outcomes of exhibitors at a travel trade show at a destination in an emerging economy.

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Life cycle models have often been seen as an apt metaphor to understand the process of collaborative process. Some well known life cycle theories are Gray’s three stage model (1985), Waddock’s evolutionary model (1989), Selin and Chavez’s evolutionary model (1995) and Caffyn’s five phases model (2000). Youcheng Wang and Daniel Fesenmaier developed a theoretical framework in 2007 to understand the processes of collaboration in a destination.   They presented a model of collaborative marketing that integrates the preconditions, motivations, processes, and outcomes of destination marketing alliances and networks based upon theories of inter-organizational relations. This model of collaborative marketing has been presented below:

 

 

Fig 1. Organizing Framework for Collaborative Destination Marketing

 

 

There are many forms of collaborative arrangements in a destination. Trade shows is one such collaborative destination marketing tool. Trade show is a very popular promotion tool used in tourism because of the inherent advantages of trade shows for the tourism industry. (Yuksel and Voola, 2010).                            

 

As indicated in Fig. 1, motivations and outcomes of the destination collaboration are seen as major constructs in the life cycle model. The literature on trade shows also focuses mainly on these two aspects of a trade show. Yuksel and Voola (2010 state that the exhibitors in tourism trade shows have to be  more qualified than in fairs for physical products, must ensure consistency in the delivery of quality image and mandates the top managers to exhibit ownership and decision making power. All these underline the complexity of travel trade shows which has an impact on the motivations and performance of exhibitors to the travel trade shows. Understanding the impact of trade shows on performance of the tourism firms is of crucial importance. The study has thus focused on the exhibitors’ behavior of a trade show.

 

Motivations of Exhibitors:

The dictionary meaning of motivation is the set of reasons that determines one to engage in a particular behavior whereas objectives are specific targets set for a short term.  In the literature, however, it was found that the two words have been used interchangeably. Kerin and Cron (1987) has stated that for a successful trade show programme, written objectives for the overall trade show program should be prepared. Herbig et al.,(1998) however state that one out of three exhibitors does not set quantifiable objectives. Cavanaugh (1976) and Bonoma (1983) were one of the earliest writers who highlighted the selling objectives of companies to participate in trade shows. Kerin and Cron (1987) empirically demonstrated the selling and non-selling functions of trade show. However, marketing executives’ higher overall ratings for non-selling functions do not support Bonoma’s contention that marketing executives have a limited perspective on the role trade shows can perform. The findings presented from a study (Rosson and Seringhaus, 1996) of Canadian participation at an international trade show in Germany  demonstrates  that trade shows  are events at which leading objectives of companies and organizations vary and the authors have hypothesized that the stage of internationalization, in part, explains this situation. A mail survey of exhibitors at two UK exhibitions (Blythe, 2002) confirmed the three most important reasons for exhibiting are meeting new customers, launching new products and taking sales orders. It was found that exhibitors were able to ascribe importance scores to the reasons for exhibiting even when they did not set formal objectives for the exhibition. Rice and Almossawi (2002) study of exhibitor firms at an Arabian Gulf Trade Show found that there were only few differences in the motivations between Gulf firms and firms previously studied in USA, Canada and the UK. Three dimensions were found underlying the purpose of exhibiting viz. Competitive/ Informational Activities, Market Development, and Selling. Kozak (2005) examines the differences among the underlying dimensions regarding exhibit objectives of the exhibitors in an East Mediterranean Tourism and Travel Exhibition in Turkey. Factor analysis gave four underlying factors viz. strategic benefit-related activities, selling-related activities, promotion-related activities, and research- related activities. Ulka Yuksel and Ranjit Voola (2010) multiple methodology approach found that the key motivation for participating in the promotional strategy of travel trade shows was to improve relationships with customers and to understand their requirements, to influence demand (persuasion) via personalized and direct communication and to create and/or maintain a product/service/country image.

 

Hansen (1996) brought an interesting dimension by developing a framework which reveals that visitors and exhibitors may have dual motives as buyers and sellers in their participation at International Trade Shows (ITS).

 

Performance:

Various marketing scholars have highlighted the multidimensional role of trade shows. The vital role of trade shows has been highlighted in relationship value creation (Geigenmuller, 2010), key account management (Blythe, 2002), as a communication tool (Blythe, 2010), a promotional tool (Browning, Adams, 1988), internationalization process of small firms (Evers, Knight, 2008), as an information source in the industrial buying process (Moriarty, Spekman, 1984) and  a complement to personal selling process (Smith et al, 2003;Herbig, O’Hara, 1993).

 

Kerin and Cron (1987) described performance as having two dimensions, as defined by Bonoma (1983) –selling and non-selling. The results of their study suggest that though the selling and non-selling functions are perceived as distinct dimensions to performance, marketing executives tend to rate their performance as successful or unsuccessful on both dimensions. Shoham, Aviv (1999) has proposed a model of trade show performance which utilizes five concepts: environmental influences, company influences, trade show selection, booth management and trade show performance. Kare Hansen(2004) developed a 16-item instrument for assessing exhibitors’ perceptions of their Trade Show performance.  Tafesse and Korneliussen (2006) found four main dimensions of the trade show performance - the competitive-intelligence, the market-scanning, the image building and the relational-sales aspects. Their study revealed that emerging market exhibitors tend to utilize the trade shows as platforms to collect competitive information and to scan market opportunities. Namsu, Kim (2008) found a correlation between the dimensions of a trade show’s service quality and the dimensions of the exhibitors’ show performance. The study validated nine dimensions of a trade show’s service quality: host and public relations, security, reputation and reliability, access, customer service, exhibition program, physical facilities, convenient facilities, and attendance cost. The study also identified five dimensions of the performance of participants: sales performance, information collection, networking, image building, and motivations.

 

Methods:

To understand the importance of collaborative trade shows in tourism, it was felt essential to assess the motivations and evaluation of participation in a travel trade show through an empirical study. The study focused primarily on identifying the motivations and outcomes (trade show performance) from the perspectives of one of the main participants i.e. exhibitors, during a tourism trade show, Kerala Travel Mart, (KTM)2012. Kerala Travel Mart, a B2B biennial trade show, was first started in 2000 and is the only tourism trade show in India which is arranged and managed by the tourism firms and showcases only one destination, Kerala. There is no destination collaborative marketing event like the Kerala Travel Mart in India. The 7^th edition of the Kerala Travel Mart in Sept 2012 provided a focus for a survey of exhibitors’ assessment of their participation in a trade show in an emerging market.  Formal permission was sought from Kerala Travel Mart society to conduct a survey during business hours of the Mart.

 

Survey Instrument:

The questionnaire on motivations (QE1) consisted of three parts. The first part mainly deals with the profile of the exhibitor. The second part is on motivations for participating in KTM.  The selection of the questions was compiled, based on a review of the relevant conceptual and empirical studies, and, in particular Kozak (2005), Hansen (1996), Blythe (1999) and Yuksel and Voola (2010) for exhibitor objectives.  The third part was questions about general behavior related to the frequency of exhibiting in KTM, and other major domestic and international shows of the tourism industry.  There was also a section at the end of the research instruments seeking information about the size of the firm in terms of employee strength, nature of ownership of the firm and the respondent’s position in the company. 

 

The questionnaire for Performance Evaluation used for the study consisted of four parts. The first part consisted of questions related to profile of the exhibitor. The second part related to respondent’s evaluation of the quality of KTM 12.  The measures of trade show quality were generated by reviewing prior trade show research on trade show quality particularly Namsu, Kim (2008), Kijewski, and Shoham (1992).  The third part related to evaluation of the respondent’s participation in KTM 2012 using Hansen’s (2002) 16 item instrument with minor modifications (to suit the study setting), for assessing exhibitors’ perceptions of their trade Show performance. The last section relates to measuring the global or overall performance of the respondent with KTM 12 and the firm’s intention to exhibit again.

 

The 5 point Likert’s scale has been used throughout the questionnaires. The questionnaires end with an open ended question on suggestions for improving KTM.  The draft questionnaire was shown to a few senior people of a few tourism firms and who had extensive experience in trade show participation. These responses provided the basis for refining the measures and making some final changes to the questionnaire.

 

Sampling Method:

For this study, the sampling unit is the tourism firm and the respondents are the representatives of the firms.  The representatives were from different levels of management. The sampling frame used was all the 312 exhibitors participating in KTM. Systematic probability sampling has been used, using the drop-off method, common for survey research in trade shows as evidenced in literature. The questionnaires were handed over to the firm’s representative in every alternate stall in each hall. It was a formidable challenge conducting a survey in a business environment. Great care had to be taken to ensure the questionnaires were handed over and collected back only when the respondent was free. For the motivations questionnaire, fifty seven usable responses were obtained, providing a response rate of 37% which is   a good rate for a survey of this kind. For the performance questionnaire, 121 valid responses were received out of 156 questionnaires handed over at the stalls, indicating a response rate of 78%, which is considered very good for industrial surveys. 

 

 

RESULTS:

The data analyses carried out for this study has a broad purpose of understanding the motivations and performance of exhibitors. To this end, the data from the surveys carried out during KTM 2012 were subjected to various univariate and bivariate analyses. Adequacy of the sample size was ensured by checking the sample representation in the various cells of cross tabulations aimed at categorizing exhibitors based on nature of business, size of business, frequency of exhibiting and nature of ownership. Further, wherever possible, the sample sizes were also compared with the actual number e.g. nature of operations, where it was found that the sample representation matched the actual representation in the population. The analysis of data reveals the following characteristics of the exhibitor.

 

Sample Profile of the Exhibitor:

Hotels/Resorts formed the highest percentage of sample exhibitors at KTM at 56%which is a natural outcome as destination trade shows are perceived to be very beneficial to hotels/resorts as they get an opportunity to showcase their products to the visitor who get a hands on feel of the property. Rest of the sample respondents were tour operators (26%), Home stays (6 %), Ayurveda, (6%) and the rest houseboat operators, destinations, and other miscellaneous categories.75 % of the sample exhibitors were repeat exhibitors which demonstrates the perceived usefulness of the Mart among the sampled tourism firms in Kerala. The results showed no particular pattern among the sample exhibitors regarding frequency of exhibition i.e. between first time exhibitors and repeat exhibitors. It was found that 36 % of the sample exhibitors had employee strength more than 100. This may be because the majority of the sample exhibitors (more than half) are from the hotels/resorts industry which, by the very nature of the operations, require more employee strength, than, say tour operators. The data from the sample exhibitors show that 41 % of sample exhibitors are private limited companies and 37.5 % are single owners. This reinforces the pattern worldwide that the tourism industry is dominated by small and medium enterprises. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in tourism are fundamental for visitor satisfaction at destinations; it is the small business that often imparts much of the individuality of experience and unique sense of place to the visitor. Almost 30% of the exhibitor firms had less than five years’ experience in the tourism industry which is almost equal to very experienced exhibitors (experience in the tourism industry) i.e. 10 to 20 years. This reconfirms the above finding that the KTM is popular among all tourism firms, irrespective of their years of experience in the tourism industry. More than half the exhibitors have not exhibited in international fairs in the last four years due to the probable reason of cost. It is clear why a destination trade show is very popular, especially among the small players, as it gives them an opportunity to connect with an international audience at a minimal cost.

 

Motivations of exhibitors:

Measuring effectiveness of trade fair participation depends heavily on what the exhibitors are hoping to achieve through trade show participation. The purposes for exhibiting are as diverse as the companies exhibiting. The first survey had asked the sample exhibitors to indicate their motivations. There were 54 valid responses.

 

Table 1: Firms’ main motivations in participating in KTM

Firms’ main motivations in participating in KTM	Mean
Give information about company's products and services	4.58
Develop and maintain relationships	4.30
Maintain company image and goodwill	4.21
Find potential customers	4.08
Introduce new products/services	4.08
New distribution channels	4.08
Explore opportunities	3.98
Learn about  new suppliers, service  providers	3.98
Keep up with competition	3.83
Network with senior industry leaders	3.62
Collect information on competitors	3.46
Do market research	3.42
Actual sales	3.23
Increase morale	3.02
Overall average	3.85

 

Table1 shows participant firms’ broad goals in participating in Kerala Travel Mart. The results indicate that the most important motivations are giving information about company‘s products and services, developing and maintaining relationships with existing customers and creating and/or maintaining company image and goodwill. The above results are different from the studies of Yuksel and Voola (2010) which had found improving relationships with existing customers as the most important objective and Blythe (1999) which found meeting new customers as the main objective. However, the results that making actual sales at the fair and increasing morale of employees are of least importance, confirm the studies of Yuksel and Voola (2010) and Blythe (1999).

 

An independent sample t test on the two major constituents of the exhibitors i.e. Hotels/resorts and tour operators showed there is not much difference between motivations based on nature of operations and the nature of ownership. There is also no significant effect of the number of years in business on the motivations, as determined by one way ANOVA.

 

Underlying Aspects to Motivations:

Three underlying dimensions were identified from literature (Rice and Almossawi, 2002 and Kozak, 2005). The various items to measure the three dimensions were also identified. The three dimensions thus identified are Strategic, market research and sales related.

 

Table 2: Underlying aspects of Motivation

Aspects of Motivation		Mean
Sales Related (5 items)		4.02
Give information about company’s products and services	4.58
To find potential customers	4.08
To find new distribution channels	4.08
To introduce new product	4.08
To make actual sales	3.23
Strategic Benefit- Related  (5 items)		3.81
Develop and Maintain Relationships	4.3
Maintain company image and goodwill	4.21
Keep up with competition	3.83
To network with industry leaders	3.62
To increase morale of employees	3.02
Market Research related ( 4 items)		3.71
To explore business opportunities	3.98
Learn about new suppliers and service providers	3.98
To collect information on competitors	3.46
To do market research	3.42

 

All the means are showing a much above average figure. The highest means are for sales related dimension with giving information indicating a very high mean. This dimension relates to motivations relating to increasing business for the company. Developing and maintaining relationship shows the highest means for strategic benefit related dimension.

 

Assessment of Quality by Exhibitors:

The assessment of the quality of the trade show is crucial for its future continuance. The trade show can be assessed on many aspects like administration of the fair, quality and quantity of visitors etc. The second set of sample exhibitors were asked to evaluate the level of satisfaction with the trade show. The total number of valid responses was 115.

 

Table 3: Evaluation of Service Quality of KTM 2012

 

Quality of service of KTM and the competence of the organizers and staff showed the highest means, followed by choice of venue and thirdly the special events. The cost of exhibiting in KTM 2012 was ranked last, preceded by the quantity of sales leads generated. The third last was the quality of sales leads generated.  The dissatisfaction with the sales leads is one indication of the unsatisfactory perception of the quality of the trade show for the sample exhibitors, which is crucial information for KTM organizers.

 

Evaluation of Performance at KTM 2012:

The performance evaluation of the sample exhibitors have been analyzed with respect to the extent to which KTM helped them in achieving the expected results from participation as an exhibitor. Projecting an image of being a strong and solid company is the most important result from the participation in KTM, followed by maintaining personal contacts with existing customers and third maintaining and developing relationships with suppliers. Support to other sales activities is the least important expected result followed by collecting information about competitors’ prices, products and strategies.  Hence participation in KTM is seen to be more of a relationship and image building activity than a sales activity. Table 2 indicates the relative importance of performance items as perceived by exhibitors.

 

Table 4: Firms’ Evaluation of Performance

Performance Items	Mean
Convince customers we are a strong and solid company	3.98
Maintain personal contacts with existing  customers	3.94
Maintain and develop relationship with suppliers	3.93
Exchange info and experience with competitors, suppliers customers	3.91
Market communication tool in general	3.90
Help sales people communicate face to face with potential customers	3.89
Explore business opportunities. in new markets	3.89
Introduce existing products to new customers	3.87
Strengthen employees motivations	3.82
Enhance and maintain company image as perceived by customers, competitors and press	3.82
Find new buyers	3.79
Establish relationship with potential customers	3.79
Search for new marketing ideas	3.77
Motivate customers (meeting our employees )	3.67
Increase speed and influence various steps in the decision process of customers	3.67
Meet decision makers	3.65
Introduce and evaluate reactions to new products	3.64
Collect  info about competitors’ prices, products and strategies	3.57
Support to other sales activities	3.56

 

Comparison of Performance Evaluation:

Nature of business has a great influence on the perception of success of   participation in a trade show. It was necessary to check whether there was any difference in evaluation of performance between hotels/resorts and tour operators exhibitors, the two main categories in KTM 2012. For these data, the Mann- Whitney test was conducted and it was found that on 4 variables,. there was a significant difference (p<.05) where the hotels/resorts had higher means than tour operators. This may be due to the nature of operations as hotels/resorts are at an advantage in being able to showcase their properties. Hence they benefit more through trade shows than tour operators. First timers evaluate their performance in the trade show differently from repeat exhibitors.  A comparison was therefore done to analyze whether there was any impact of frequency of exhibition in the evaluation of performance using Mann Whitney test. The above analysis clearly shows there is no difference in evaluation of performance between first time exhibitors and repeat exhibitors as p >.05 for all performance items.

 

Overall evaluation of trade show:

The results show that more than 50% of the exhibitors were satisfied with the performance of their company at KTM. The quality and quantity of sales leads generated by a trade show through the visitors are the most important indicators of quality in a trade show. Quality of visitors refers to the potential ability of the visitors to generate high value business for the firm and the destination while quantity of visitors refers to the total number of visitors. Though more than 50% were very satisfied /satisfied with the quality and quantity of visitors, 25% of the exhibitors had no opinion while more than 15% were dissatisfied /very dissatisfied. These are warning signals which organizers must heed to ensure a demand for stalls in future KTMs.

 

More than 40% of the exhibitors have indicated that there is a likelihood of the sales leads from KTM converting into sales within the next 12 months. But almost 35% is neutral, which means there are a good number of exhibitors who are uncertain about the outcome. The signs could be worrisome for KTM as the main reason for firms to participate in a trade show is an increase in business in the long run. 57% of the sample exhibitors have indicated that they are very /most likely to exhibit at the next KTM. It may be noted here that the stall fees paid by exhibitors is the main source of income for a trade show hence a healthy  turnout of exhibitors is essential for the growth of KTM.A  positive word of mouth is a good indication of the popularity of the event for the firms who exhibit in KTM. The survey results indicate that an overwhelming 75% of the sample exhibitors will recommend KTM to other tourism players in Kerala. Though the earlier analysis show that not all exhibitors are convinced about their individual success or participation, the above data show they are convinced about the usefulness of KTM for Kerala and its likely continuance for the near future.

 

Underlying Aspects of Performance:

Four underlying dimensions were identified from literature on performance. (Skallerud (2010), Kim, Namsu (2008), Tafesse and Korneliussen (2006), Hansen (2002) viz. Image building, Relationship building, Information gathering and Sales related. The various items to measure the four dimensions were also identified as below.

Table 5: Underlying Aspects of Performance Evaluation

Exhibitor Motivations - Underlying aspects	Mean	Composite Mean
Image Building Activities (3 items)		3.90
Convince customers we are a strong and solid company	3.98
Effective marketing communication tool	3.90
Enhance company image as perceived by customers, competitors and press	3.82
Relationship building activities (4 items)		3.83
Maintain Personal contacts with existing customers	3.94
Maintain and develop relationship with suppliers	3.93
Relationship with potential customers	3.79
To meet decision makers	3.65
Information gathering activities (3 items)		3.75
Exchange information with competitors, suppliers, customers	3.91
Search for new marketing ideas	3.77
To collect information about competitors	3.57
Sales Related Activities (6 items)		3.74
Explore New markets	3.89
To introduce existing products to new markets	3.87
To find new buyers	3.79
To increase speed and influence of the decision process	3.67
Introduce and evaluate reactions to new products	3.64
Support to other sales activities	3.56

 

All the means are showing an above average figure. The highest means are for image building dimension with convincing customers we are a strong and solid company indicating a very high mean. Maintaining personal contacts with existing customers shows the highest means for Relationship building activities. Under information gathering activities, exchanging information with competitors/suppliers/customers shows the highest mean. For sales related activities, exploring new markets show the highest mean. The results clearly indicate that non selling activities predominate trade shows.

 

Structural Model for Analysis of Relationship among dimensions, performance outcome and future exhibitor behavior:

Based on the above, the researcher posited that four causal constructs or factors (i.e. image building, relationship building, information gathering and sales) influence overall trade show performance and the resulting behavioral consequence (i.e. future intentions to participate as an exhibit tor in KTM and positive recommendation to others). Specifically, researcher modelled  image building (image), relationship building (rel), information gathering(info) and sales (sales) as dimensions which are linked to second order construct overall  trade show performance(overall). This construct (overall) is then linked to future intentions to participate as an exhibitor in KTM (int) and recommending KTM to others (rec). The entire structural model (seven constructs) is tested simultaneously through Structural Equation Modelling using the Partial Least Square (PLS) based software, Warp PLS 3.0, and the result is as shown in Figure 6.12. Results of the model estimates revealed the relative importance of each of the constructs that contributed to the overall trade show performance.

	(APC)=0.348, P<0.001 (ARS)=0.380, P<0.001 (AVIF)=3.419, Good if <= 5

 

Figure 2: Structural Model for Trade Show Performance

 

 

It was found that all three fit criteria were met and the model had an acceptable predictive and explanatory quality as the data was well represented by the model. All the factor loadings of the reflective indicators were found to be more than 0.5 with ‘p’<0.01. The model emerged as one with satisfactory value for R-squared and Q-squared being indicators for predictive validity. The square root of AVE for all constructs was found to be more than any of the correlations involving that latent variable. All these observations confirmed the reliability and validity of the constructs making it suitable to draw conclusions on causality.

 

The study shows that highest contribution to the trade show’s overall performance comes from Information (β=.45) followed by image (β=.14) and then sales (β=.11) and finally by relationship (β=.09). But it should also be noted that effect of sales and relationship on overall trade show performance is found to be not significant. All the four variables together contribute to 31% of variation in overall trade show performance (R squared value = 0.31).  It is also seen that overall trade show performance is able to account for 39% variation in Intention to exhibit and 44% in Recommending KTM.

 

Table 6: Model Estimates for SEM model for Trade Show performance

 

DISCUSSION:

This study brought out the importance of the non- selling aspects of a destination trade show. Most sample exhibitors have indicated giving information on products as the main motivation and developing and maintaining relationships as the second main motivation of exhibitors. Projecting an image of being a strong and solid company and fostering relationships are perceived as the most important outcomes for exhibitors. So it is evident that KTM has been a success as the trade show has achieved one of the main motivations – building relationships. These results reconfirm the critical role played by trade shows in strategic marketing. The study indicated that the main participants were satisfied with their trade show participation by confirming repeat participation and positive referrals.

 

Social capital-oriented outcomes focuses on the relationship and trust building process among the various sectors of the tourism industry in the destination, as well as the benefits of the embedded relationship among tourism organizations, such as information exchange, future business opportunities, and the learning opportunities.  The second highest achievement through participation in KTM was mentioned as maintaining personal contacts with existing customers and third achievement maintaining and developing relationships with suppliers.

The number of varied products determines the strength of the destination. Kerala has both tangible and intangible elements e.g. physiography, culture and history which are offered to potential buyers – the backwaters, the wildlife and the art forms. The exhibitors are able to experiment with new product forms and encourage the buyers who visit KTM to actually see the new product which is not possible in other travel trade shows. The survey among the exhibitors during the Mart brought out this aspect as introducing existing products to new markets and exploring business opportunities also had high means among the results achieved due to their participation in the Mart.

 

Trade shows are generally great venues for learning. Sharland and Balogh (1996) highlights that trade shows are a potential gold mine of access to low cost information. The study highlights the learning outcomes through information related activities of exhibitors such as collecting information on competitors, doing market research, giving information about company’s products and services.

 

Managerial Implications:

Studies on trade shows in tourism appear to be particularly relevant at a time when they have proved successful in providing solutions to marketing and promoting tourism products in destinations. This study has attempted, in part, to also fill a gap in the literature by exploring a tourism trade show in an emerging destination with a different market structure. Emerging tourist destinations have unique characteristics, which differentiate them from matured destinations or destination at their decline stage. 

 

This study offers practical implications for managers in destination organizations.  The ultimate goal of marketing in the tourism industry is to increase competitive advantage for both the firms and the destination.  It is important to gain a better understanding of the outcomes of trade shows as perceived by stakeholders. Such evaluations should be carried out as a routine element of the ongoing management process.  This study has made a beginning in the evaluation process.

 

It is expected that the study will give insights and practical guidance to the establishment and management of different destination collaborative efforts.  Other destinations in India can follow this example of Kerala and start similar trade shows specific to the destination.

As the surveys indicate, Kerala Travel Mart has been a successful collaborative public private partnership.    Industry leaders must pay attention to continually monitoring and refining the collaboration, its purpose, its process and its outcomes.  The study highlights the strategies the government machinery must make in order to effectively leverage the government network to promote KTM and similar collaborative efforts in key foreign markets and to take advantage of the power of networking externalities in their destination efforts.

 

Research Implications:

For tourism research, studies of inter-organizational collaboration in tourism is very relevant as public and private sectors are increasingly forging partnership arrangements to market and promote tourism products in destinations. The tourism sector is heavily dependent on entrepreneurship and cannot survive in the long run if it is not both sustainable and entrepreneurial at the same time. This study demonstrates how collaborative efforts link entrepreneurs in tourism and shows how the effort can be sustainable in the long run.  Further empirical research is recommended in other destinations with different characteristics and industry structure to confirm or challenge the findings in this study.

 

LIMITATIONS:

There are a few limitations to this study. This study has taken the example of a single case study as KTM is a unique collaborative venture not found anywhere else in India.  The results are valid for one destination and could reflect the unique behavior of individuals in a local/regional culture that is different from those in other destinations.

 

The surveys were conducted during KTM 2012. The data collected for later editions may further confirm/challenge the findings of this study.

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Blythe, J. (2002). Using trade fairs in key account management. Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002), pp 627-635

2.       Blythe, J. (2010). Trade fairs as communication : a new model. Journal of Business, 1, 57-62.

3.       Bonoma, Thomas V. (1983), Get more out of your trade shows, Harvard Business Review, January- February,1983;61 :pp  75-83

4.       Browning, J.M., Adams, R.J., (1988), Trade Shows: An Effective Promotional Tool for Small Industrial Businesses, Journal of Small Business Management, Oct. 26 (4): pp 31-36

5.       Caffyn, Alison (2000)   Is There a Tourism Partnership Life Cycle? In B. Bramwell and Bernard Lane (Eds) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships –Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Indian edition, Viva Books Private Ltd, New Delhi, pp 333-341. 

6.       Cavanaugh, Suzette (1976), Setting objectives and evaluating the effectiveness of Trade Show exhibits”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol.40, No.4, pp 100-103

7.       Esu, B. B.; Ebitu, E. (2010) Promoting an Emerging Tourism Destination, Global Journal of Management and Business Research, Vol. 10 Issue 1 (Ver.1.0), pp 21-28.

8.       Evers, Natasha, Knight, John (2008),” Role of international trade shows in small firm internalization: a network perspective, International Marketing Review, Vol.25, No.5, pp 544-562

9.       Fayos-Sola, Eduardo, Marin, Alberto, Meffert, Claudio(1994),The Strategic role of tourism trade fairs in the new age of tourism, Tourism Management, 15(1)9-16

10.     Geigenmuller, A. (2010) ‘The role of virtual trade fairs in relationship value creation’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.284–292.

11.     Gray.B. (1985), Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations 38 (10), pp 911-936.

12.     Hansen, Kare (1996),”The dual Motives of participants at International Trade Shows, International Marketing Review,Vol.13,No.2, pp 39-53

13.     Hansen, K. (2004). Measuring performance at trade shows: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1-13.

14.     Herbig, P., O’Hara, B. and Palumbo, F.A. (1998) ‘Tradeshow: who, what, why’, Journal of Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp.425–435

15.     Kerin, Roger A., Cron, William, L. (1987) Assessing Trade Show Functions and Performance: An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Marketing, Vol.51, and No.3.

16.     Kirchgeorg, Manfred, Springer Christiane and Kastner, Evelyn (2010),” Objectives for successfully participating in trade shows “Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25/1, pp 63-72

17.     Kozak, N. (2005): The Expectations of Exhibitors in Tourism, Hospitality, and the Travel Industry : A Case Study on East Mediterranean Tourism and Travel Exhibition - Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, pp 37-41

18.     Lichrou, M., O’Malley, L., Patterson, M., Place ‘Product or place narrative (s)? Perspectives in the Marketing of Tourism Destinations’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol.16, No.1, Feb. 2008, pp 27-39.

19.     Moriarty, R. T. Jr. and Spekman, R. E.,1984, An Empirical Investigation of the Information Sources Used during the Industrial Buying  Process, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 137-147

20.     Namsu, Kim (2008), The Relationship between Exhibitors’ Show Performance and the Service Quality of Trade Shows: Research based on international trade shows held in Korea, article accessed from www.dbpia.co.kr on 16/08/11

21.     Rice, Gillian and Almossawi, Mohammed (2002): A Study of Exhibitor Firms at an Arabian Gulf Trade Show, Journal of Global Marketing, 15:3-4, 149-172

22.     Rosson, Philip J., Seringhaus, F. H. Rolf. (1996) Trade Fairs as International Marketing Venues: A Case Study “In IMP Conference (12th): Interaction, Relationships and Networks, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.

23.     Sharland A., Balogh P., The Value of non selling activities at international trade shows, Industrial Marketing Management, 25(1), pp 59-66

24.     Shoham, Aviv (1992), Selecting and Evaluating Trade Shows, Industrial Marketing Management, 21, pp 335-341

25.     Selin, Steve; Chavez, Debbie (1995) Developing an Evolutionary Tourism Partnership Model, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.22, No.4, pp 844-856.

26.     Smith, T. M., Hama, K., and Smith, P. M.(2003): The effect of successful trade show attendance on future show interest : exploring Japanese attendee perspectives of domestic and offshore international events, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol.18 NO.4/5,pp.403-418

27.     Tafesse, Wondwesen and Korneliussen, Tor (2006), The dimensionality of trade show performance in an emerging market, International Journal of Emerging markets

28.     Waddock, S. (1989) Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organizations, Administration and Society 2191, pp 78-100.

29.     Wang, Y., Fesenmaier, Daniel R. (2007) Collaborative destination marketing: A case study of Elkhart county, Indiana, Tourism Management 28,       pp 863–875.

30.     WTO (2002), Destination Management and Quality Programme, [online] http://destination.unwto.org, accessed on 1/6/2014.

31.     Yuksel, U., and Voola, R. (2010). Travel trade shows : exploratory study of exhibitors’ perceptions. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 293-300.

 

 

 

 

 

Accepted on 20.04.2017                © A&V Publications all right reserved